If the Tradition is flowing along without any major challenge from any heresy it may simply be left in peace. If heresy arises and it is unsettling the whole Church then a Council will be convened to clarify orthodox teaching and tradition.

All this is a far cry from your kind of superficial statement of "brag[ging] about not needing to have doctrine defined beyond the Big Seven..."

This "flowing along without major challenge" has resulted in a variety of intra-Orthodox teachings on any number of issues, with no recourse to resolve deviance at all, save for an ecumenical council.

Such deviance is acceptable in Orthodoxy

One could ask about the deviance within Catholicism where there are 22 Eastern Churches which disagree with the Mother Church on weighty matters of faith, even to the extent of denying dogmas which have been declared infallibly by the Pope and Mother Church. If one desires to examine the methodology of deviance one need look no further than the Catholic Church.

Again, I an surprised that an Eastern Catholic seems unaware of these things.... A Roman Catholic visiting a Ukrainian party.

Speaking of deviancy in the Catholic Church, here is a Catholic Patriarch you shouldn't send to bilateral discussions striving for unity with us..

Cardinal José da Cruz Policarpo of Lisbon, Portugal, a veteran European prelate at one point considered a contender for the papacy, reportedly has said there’s “no fundamental theological obstacle” to the ordination of women as priests in the Catholic church.

Nice try at introducing red herrings! Sorry, not biting. Although if you want to talk about violence how about the battles Pope Pius IX fought against Italy, and he killed so many young Italian men that he made himself a prisoner in the Vatican protected by his troops to avoid being killed by the fathers and brothers of the dead Italian soldiers. Shall we talk about how he tried to involve France and Spain in his violence against Italy but they were horrified and refused to bend to his will.

But you won't hear me boasting about those events.

The notion that I was bragging about what took place in Sydney is something you have picked up from Mary.

Actually, as soon as I read post #67, I thought that the tone of it was troubling.

For many Orthodox the introduction of heresy into the Church, as these Greek faithful believed their bishop to be compliant with, is a greater evil than money changers in the temple. Perhaps the example of Jesus the Saviour came to mind for them..... He actually made a whip and used violence to whip the money changers out of the temple, upending their tables and creating chaos and commotion. He cleansed the temple by an act of violence.

There is an appointed time for everything. There is a time for everything under heaven ~ A time to give birth, and a time to die; A time to plant, and a time to uproot what is planted. A time to kill, and a time to heal; A time to tear down, and a time to build up. A time to weep, and a time to laugh; A time to mourn, and a time to dance. A time to throw stones, and a time to gather stones

I have to say that, as a traditional Catholic, I am agreement with Dr. Hahn with regard to his assessment of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would it surprise anyone that an orthodox Catholic would view the Eastern Orthodox as being in error?

By all means oppose Orthodoxy, but oppose reality, not some fantasy mental construct fashioned out of ignorance and bias.

I am opposing reality.

LOL. That you are.

LOL. Scott, you know what I meant. I am opposing what Eastern Orthodoxy has really become.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

I would like to add that I don't agree with the concept that EOs are theologically stagnant. That is one point were Hahn and I diverge. I think that theological innovation is a big part of Eastern Orthodoxy. One example is the fact that they used to believe in Purgatory and Original Sin, and have since rejected those teachings. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception came from the East, not the West, and yet, they currently reject that as well.

Well, in an odd way you refute Hahn's accusation that our theology is stagnant. As you point out, it is not stagnant at all. Once we used to be burdened with some undeveloped erroneous beliefs. But now we have developed our doctrine and rectified them. Hey, look at us! We got evolving theology just like the Catholics!! Who's going to tell Scott Hahn that he needs to revise his book?

Well, he is free to his opinion. But I agree with you on this point. Eastern Orthodoxy is ever changing. And everytime EOs decided that the don't like what they believed five hundred years in the past, they can simply refer to it as some kind of "captivity".

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

I would like to add that I don't agree with the concept that EOs are theologically stagnant. That is one point were Hahn and I diverge. I think that theological innovation is a big part of Eastern Orthodoxy. One example is the fact that they used to believe in Purgatory and Original Sin, and have since rejected those teachings. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception came from the East, not the West, and yet, they currently reject that as well.

Well, in an odd way you refute Hahn's accusation that our theology is stagnant. As you point out, it is not stagnant at all. Once we used to be burdened with some undeveloped erroneous beliefs. But now we have developed our doctrine and rectified them. Hey, look at us! We got evolving theology just like the Catholics!! Who's going to tell Scott Hahn that he needs to revise his book?

Well, he is free to his opinion. But I agree with you on this point. Eastern Orthodoxy is ever changing. And everytime EOs decided that the don't like what they believed five hundred years in the past, they can simply refer to it as some kind of "captivity".

Well, you had your chance to exterminate us five hundred years ago, following the teaching of the Angelic Doctor about killing heretics. You should have taken it, but now you have reversed your teaching 180 degrees and can't kill us now. Maybe you can go back to the true teaching sometime?

If the Tradition is flowing along without any major challenge from any heresy it may simply be left in peace. If heresy arises and it is unsettling the whole Church then a Council will be convened to clarify orthodox teaching and tradition.

All this is a far cry from your kind of superficial statement of "brag[ging] about not needing to have doctrine defined beyond the Big Seven..."

This "flowing along without major challenge" has resulted in a variety of intra-Orthodox teachings on any number of issues, with no recourse to resolve deviance at all, save for an ecumenical council.

Such deviance is acceptable in Orthodoxy

So we are presented with another "Dixit Maria." Allegations of this and accusations of that but not a shred of substantiation nor specifics. The tactic is way old!

Not really. Somewhere around here is a book list of texts used in Orthodox parishes to catechize converts and adults and frankly there's a great deal of variety contained in those texts and its perfectly acceptable.

I don't mind it myself. But it makes you look silly when you insist that there's this miraculous unity of faith.

If the Tradition is flowing along without any major challenge from any heresy it may simply be left in peace. If heresy arises and it is unsettling the whole Church then a Council will be convened to clarify orthodox teaching and tradition.

All this is a far cry from your kind of superficial statement of "brag[ging] about not needing to have doctrine defined beyond the Big Seven..."

This "flowing along without major challenge" has resulted in a variety of intra-Orthodox teachings on any number of issues, with no recourse to resolve deviance at all, save for an ecumenical council.

Such deviance is acceptable in Orthodoxy

So we are presented with another "Dixit Maria." Allegations of this and accusations of that but not a shred of substantiation nor specifics. The tactic is way old!

Not really. Somewhere around here is a book list of texts used in Orthodox parishes to catechize converts and adults and frankly there's a great deal of variety contained in those texts and its perfectly acceptable.

I don't mind it myself. But it makes you look silly when you insist that there's this miraculous unity of faith.

Are you going to give us any clues? What are some of the deviant teachings? We are really still stuck with one of your typical "Dixit Maria" assertions.

If the Tradition is flowing along without any major challenge from any heresy it may simply be left in peace. If heresy arises and it is unsettling the whole Church then a Council will be convened to clarify orthodox teaching and tradition.

All this is a far cry from your kind of superficial statement of "brag[ging] about not needing to have doctrine defined beyond the Big Seven..."

This "flowing along without major challenge" has resulted in a variety of intra-Orthodox teachings on any number of issues, with no recourse to resolve deviance at all, save for an ecumenical council.

Such deviance is acceptable in Orthodoxy

So we are presented with another "Dixit Maria." Allegations of this and accusations of that but not a shred of substantiation nor specifics. The tactic is way old!

Not really. Somewhere around here is a book list of texts used in Orthodox parishes to catechize converts and adults and frankly there's a great deal of variety contained in those texts and its perfectly acceptable.

I don't mind it myself. But it makes you look silly when you insist that there's this miraculous unity of faith.

Are you going to give us any clues? What are some of the deviant teachings? We are really still stuck with one of your typical "Dixit Maria" assertions.

I gave you more than clues. I gave you the full citations of each text.

These are Orthodox texts, readily available, on all the best book lists and catechism lists. I am not going to sit here and type out text. Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....

Again this is simply a "Dixit Maria" statement. And your nose must be growing !! You don't provide any quotes from any catechisms nor any links to websites. To be fair you may have misremembered and thought you had.

These are Orthodox texts, readily available, on all the best book lists and catechism lists. I am not going to sit here and type out text. Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....

The bottom line is that you do not want to take Orthodoxy (or even Eastern Catholicism) on its own terms but you want it to conform to your rather Roman ideas of tidiness and consistency. These presumptions on your part make your usefulness to the ecumenical dialogue questionable.

/\ The sinner known as Irish Hermit wishes to state --- he has known Mary for a number of years and has a love and respect for her. The donnybrooks which we enjoy in public are not the sum total of our relationship. I am still not sure she isn't being bankrolled by the Vatican to destabilise Orthodoxy but then people think I could have the converse vocation. :-)

I would like to add that I don't agree with the concept that EOs are theologically stagnant. That is one point were Hahn and I diverge. I think that theological innovation is a big part of Eastern Orthodoxy. One example is the fact that they used to believe in Purgatory and Original Sin, and have since rejected those teachings. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception came from the East, not the West, and yet, they currently reject that as well.

Well, in an odd way you refute Hahn's accusation that our theology is stagnant. As you point out, it is not stagnant at all. Once we used to be burdened with some undeveloped erroneous beliefs. But now we have developed our doctrine and rectified them. Hey, look at us! We got evolving theology just like the Catholics!! Who's going to tell Scott Hahn that he needs to revise his book?

Well, he is free to his opinion. But I agree with you on this point. Eastern Orthodoxy is ever changing. And everytime EOs decided that the don't like what they believed five hundred years in the past, they can simply refer to it as some kind of "captivity".

Well, you had your chance to exterminate us five hundred years ago, following the teaching of the Angelic Doctor about killing heretics. You should have taken it, but now you have reversed your teaching 180 degrees and can't kill us now. Maybe you can go back to the true teaching sometime?

Oh, snap.

Sorry to contribute nothing, but I thought it was a good call by Father.

These are Orthodox texts, readily available, on all the best book lists and catechism lists. I am not going to sit here and type out text. Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....

Again this is simply a "Dixit Maria" statement. And your nose must be growing !! You don't provide any quotes from any catechisms nor any links to websites. To be fair you may have misremembered and thought you had.

/\ The sinner known as Irish Hermit wishes to state --- he has known Mary for a number of years and has a love and respect for her. The donnybrooks which we enjoy in public are not the sum total of our relationship.

These are Orthodox texts, readily available, on all the best book lists and catechism lists. I am not going to sit here and type out text. Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....

Again this is simply a "Dixit Maria" statement. And your nose must be growing !! You don't provide any quotes from any catechisms nor any links to websites. To be fair you may have misremembered and thought you had.

It's in another thread somewhere. I am not worried about it. The list exists. There are 11 books listed. There's more but these are all the ones I can vouch for as actually being used to catechize.

The bottom line is that you do not want to take Orthodoxy (or even Eastern Catholicism) on its own terms but you want it to conform to your rather Roman ideas of tidiness and consistency. These presumptions on your part make your usefulness to the ecumenical dialogue questionable.

Horse hockey, ducks.

You just can't deal with someone well versed in both traditions without working overtime to discredit. You might catch a few in that net but most active folks on this forum have seen your act before....

The bottom line is that you do not want to take Orthodoxy (or even Eastern Catholicism) on its own terms but you want it to conform to your rather Roman ideas of tidiness and consistency. These presumptions on your part make your usefulness to the ecumenical dialogue questionable.

Horse hockey, ducks.

You just can't deal with someone well versed in both traditions ....

In that case please take time in the future to substantiate what you write. You rarely do that and your readers seem expected to take things just on your say-so.

The bottom line is that you do not want to take Orthodoxy (or even Eastern Catholicism) on its own terms but you want it to conform to your rather Roman ideas of tidiness and consistency. These presumptions on your part make your usefulness to the ecumenical dialogue questionable.

Horse hockey, ducks.

You just can't deal with someone well versed in both traditions ....

In that case please take time in the future to substantiate what you write. You rarely do that and your readers seem expected to take things just on your say-so.

I rarely say anything that cannot easily be researched right here on-line and if I cannot find it on-line or have not been able to do so then I generally look for a source.

But in the main I know enough of what I speak that I don't really need to go spending time I haven't got for a chatter-forum, just to satisfy my most active detractors.

The bottom line is that you do not want to take Orthodoxy (or even Eastern Catholicism) on its own terms but you want it to conform to your rather Roman ideas of tidiness and consistency. These presumptions on your part make your usefulness to the ecumenical dialogue questionable.

Horse hockey, ducks.

You just can't deal with someone well versed in both traditions ....

In that case please take time in the future to substantiate what you write. You rarely do that and your readers seem expected to take things just on your say-so.

I rarely say anything that cannot easily be researched right here on-line and if I cannot find it on-line or have not been able to do so then I generally look for a source.

But in the main I know enough of what I speak that I don't really need to go spending time I haven't got for a chatter-forum, just to satisfy my most active detractors.

Go fish...

I'll throw this fish back.

« Last Edit: July 10, 2011, 09:13:47 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

These are Orthodox texts, readily available, on all the best book lists and catechism lists. I am not going to sit here and type out text. Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....

Again this is simply a "Dixit Maria" statement. And your nose must be growing !! You don't provide any quotes from any catechisms nor any links to websites. To be fair you may have misremembered and thought you had.

It's in another thread somewhere. I am not worried about it. The list exists. There are 11 books listed. There's more but these are all the ones I can vouch for as actually being used to catechize.

I had started to post links to the actual documents, but my computer kept freezing. It's quite a fruit salad, not only with apples and organges but a few bananas, cherries and even a cuquat or two!

« Last Edit: July 10, 2011, 09:31:55 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

These are Orthodox texts, readily available, on all the best book lists and catechism lists. I am not going to sit here and type out text. Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....

Again this is simply a "Dixit Maria" statement. And your nose must be growing !! You don't provide any quotes from any catechisms nor any links to websites. To be fair you may have misremembered and thought you had.

It's in another thread somewhere. I am not worried about it. The list exists. There are 11 books listed. There's more but these are all the ones I can vouch for as actually being used to catechize.

These are Orthodox texts, readily available, on all the best book lists and catechism lists. I am not going to sit here and type out text. Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....

Again this is simply a "Dixit Maria" statement. And your nose must be growing !! You don't provide any quotes from any catechisms nor any links to websites. To be fair you may have misremembered and thought you had.

It's in another thread somewhere. I am not worried about it. The list exists. There are 11 books listed. There's more but these are all the ones I can vouch for as actually being used to catechize.

I had started to post links to the actual documents, but my computer kept freezing. It's quite a fruit salad, not only with apples and organges but a few bananas, cherries and even a cuquat or two!

Mary said, in message 98 "I gave you the full citations of each text"

In the jumble of links to which Ialmisry has referred us Mary has only referred us to Amazon. com and obviously she expects us to buy the books and go fishing for whatever texts she has in mind.

It simply is *not* right to say "I gave you the full citations of each text" when she never did at all. She gave us a list of books to buy. Pshaw!

I've started, with more success, to post links to the works she refers to (she doesn't cite anything), on the original thread. I've read most, but I don't know what she is talking about as far as fundamental dogmatic differences. One things is she is comparing different genres, e.g. contrasting a dogmatic textbook like Pomozansky with a reformist essay like Schmemann's "For the Life of the World."

I will say from the list, if you have the money, it would be well spent.

« Last Edit: July 10, 2011, 10:40:39 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

These are Orthodox texts, readily available, on all the best book lists and catechism lists. I am not going to sit here and type out text. Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....

Again this is simply a "Dixit Maria" statement. And your nose must be growing !! You don't provide any quotes from any catechisms nor any links to websites. To be fair you may have misremembered and thought you had.

It's in another thread somewhere. I am not worried about it. The list exists. There are 11 books listed. There's more but these are all the ones I can vouch for as actually being used to catechize.

I had started to post links to the actual documents, but my computer kept freezing. It's quite a fruit salad, not only with apples and organges but a few bananas, cherries and even a cuquat or two!

Mary said, in message 98 "I gave you the full citations of each text"

In the jumble of links to which Ialmisry has referred us Mary has only referred us to Amazon. com and obviously she expects us to buy the books and go fishing for whatever texts she has in mind.

It simply is *not* right to say "I gave you the full citations of each text" when she never did at all. She gave us a list of books to buy. Pshaw!

I've started, with more success, to post links to the works she refers to (she doesn't cite anything), on the original thread. I've read most, but I don't know what she is talking about as far as fundamental dogmatic differences. One things is she is comparing different genres, e.g. contrasting a dogmatic textbook like Pomozansky with a reformist essay like Schmemann's "For the Life of the World."

I will say from the list, if you have the money, it would be well spent.

These are Orthodox texts, readily available, on all the best book lists and catechism lists. I am not going to sit here and type out text. Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....

Again this is simply a "Dixit Maria" statement. And your nose must be growing !! You don't provide any quotes from any catechisms nor any links to websites. To be fair you may have misremembered and thought you had.

It's in another thread somewhere. I am not worried about it. The list exists. There are 11 books listed. There's more but these are all the ones I can vouch for as actually being used to catechize.

I've started, with more success, to post links to the works she refers to (she doesn't cite anything), on the original thread. I've read most, but I don't know what she is talking about as far as fundamental dogmatic differences. One things is she is comparing different genres, e.g. contrasting a dogmatic textbook like Pomozansky with a reformist essay like Schmemann's "For the Life of the World."

I will say from the list, if you have the money, it would be well spent.

What is common to these texts, as I have repeatedly said, is the fact that they are used in actual parishes for catechesis and teaching the Orthodox faith.

The books are used and read...and no...they are not always in full agreement on every point...and certainly not always in agreement with some of the most popular assertions from Internet Orthodox apologists, like yourself.

These are Orthodox texts, readily available, on all the best book lists and catechism lists. I am not going to sit here and type out text. Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....

Again this is simply a "Dixit Maria" statement. And your nose must be growing !! You don't provide any quotes from any catechisms nor any links to websites. To be fair you may have misremembered and thought you had.

It's in another thread somewhere. I am not worried about it. The list exists. There are 11 books listed. There's more but these are all the ones I can vouch for as actually being used to catechize.

You've provided a bibliography, nothing more. You have NOT provided anything resembling citations of instances of deviations of Orthodox doctrine.

This is nothing more than a distraction. It won't kill people reading this forum to do some systematic work. IF they cannot see the variations in teaching by systematic study, they surely will not "see" it when some Pape hands it to them on a plate.

Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....

You're the one making allegations that the Orthodox Church has vaccillated on the above teachings. You made the allegations, you back them up. Yup, all hat and no cattle, as usual.

You've provided a bibliography, nothing more. You have NOT provided anything resembling citations of instances of deviations of Orthodox doctrine.

This is nothing more than a distraction. It won't kill people reading this forum to do some systematic work.

In a discussion or debate, the burden of proof falls on the person making assertions of fact to cite all the texts necessary to substantiate her assertions. Those whom she is trying to convince bear no burden of proof to prove her wrong. What this means practically for this debate is that Mary needs to do the systematic work necessary to back up her "Dixit Maria" statements. If she cannot or will not do so, we bear no responsibility whatsoever to do her work for her.

IOW, elijahmaria, it won't kill you to do the systematic work you would like to push off on us.

Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....

You're the one making allegations that the Orthodox Church has vaccillated on the above teachings. You made the allegations, you back them up. Yup, all hat and no cattle, as usual.

I never said they vacillate...That's your addition to the mix.

I said that there is no monolithic or universal teaching in Orthodoxy that brooks NO deviance one jurisdiction from another.

That is evident without the books for goodness sake!!

Which is why I am not going to rise to your bait here. If something comes up in context or conversation, I may consider using the texts to make a point above...in my own words...not yours.

These are Orthodox texts, readily available, on all the best book lists and catechism lists. I am not going to sit here and type out text. Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....

Again this is simply a "Dixit Maria" statement. And your nose must be growing !! You don't provide any quotes from any catechisms nor any links to websites. To be fair you may have misremembered and thought you had.

It's in another thread somewhere. I am not worried about it. The list exists. There are 11 books listed. There's more but these are all the ones I can vouch for as actually being used to catechize.

Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....

Quote

I said that there is no monolithic or universal teaching in Orthodoxy that brooks NO deviance one jurisdiction from another.

These are your words, Mary. I'm sure the rest of us are particularly interested in deviations within the Orthodox world in the teaching of the Real Presence.

Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....

Quote

I said that there is no monolithic or universal teaching in Orthodoxy that brooks NO deviance one jurisdiction from another.

These are your words, Mary. I'm sure the rest of us are particularly interested in deviations within the Orthodox world in the teaching of the Real Presence.

That is one topic that I know for certain that Father Ambrose can address far better than I can do it. It is a particularly sensitive one for him too, and he is always challenging other Orthodox clergy...and sadly he seems to loose the battle more often than not. But I will let him address that.

Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....

Quote

I said that there is no monolithic or universal teaching in Orthodoxy that brooks NO deviance one jurisdiction from another.

These are your words, Mary. I'm sure the rest of us are particularly interested in deviations within the Orthodox world in the teaching of the Real Presence.

That is one topic that I know for certain that Father Ambrose can address far better than I can do it. It is a particularly sensitive one for him too, and he is always challenging other Orthodox clergy...and sadly he seems to loose the battle more often than not. But I will let him address that.

In the year 2004 there was a heavy debate sparked on the Yahoo group Orthodox-Forum by some unlearned clergy who denied that the soul and divinity of Christ are present in the Holy Gifts. They based this claim on Scripture where Christ says "This is My body" and This is My blood" and he does not mention his soul and divinity.

To deny that soul and divinity are also in the Holy Gifts is a radical assault on the teaching of Chalcedon concerning the Hypostatic Union, the God-Man, etc.

This heretical position was being espoused by one silver-tongued monk from the OCA and one rather sorry priest. Mary likes to make out that there was truckload of clergy supporting the heresy but it was only two contributors to Orthodox-Forum.

So Mary and I formed an alliance in defence of the Hypostatic Union and sent many messages to the Orthodox-Forum to prove the point, with citations from Saint John of Damascus, Irenaeus of Lyons, Symeon the New Theologian, Fr Michael Pomazansky, various Greek theologians, etc.

These messages can still be accessed on Orthodox-Forum. Do a search using emrys for the Name of the Author and using body blood soul divinity for the Subject Line. But last time I looked the overtly heretical ones did not seem to be there any more.

Months later I was surprised to receive a message from America from a bishop saying that the Orthodox-Forum debate had been brought to his attention and he had taken some measures to apprise the erring clergy of the Church's teaching.

Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....

Quote

I said that there is no monolithic or universal teaching in Orthodoxy that brooks NO deviance one jurisdiction from another.

These are your words, Mary. I'm sure the rest of us are particularly interested in deviations within the Orthodox world in the teaching of the Real Presence.

That is one topic that I know for certain that Father Ambrose can address far better than I can do it. It is a particularly sensitive one for him too, and he is always challenging other Orthodox clergy...and sadly he seems to loose the battle more often than not. But I will let him address that.

In the year 2004 there was a heavy debate sparked on the Yahoo group Orthodox-Forum by some unlearned clergy who denied that the soul and divinity of Christ are present in the Holy Gifts. They based this claim on Scripture where Christ says "This is My body" and This is My blood" and he does not mention his soul and divinity.

To deny that soul and divinity are also in the Holy Gifts is a radical assault on the teaching of Chalcedon concerning the Hypostatic Union, the God-Man, etc.

This heretical position was being espoused by one silver-tongued monk from the OCA and one rather sorry priest. Mary likes to make out that there was truckload of clergy supporting the heresy but it was only two contributors to Orthodox-Forum.

So Mary and I formed an alliance in defence of the Hypostatic Union and sent many messages to the Orthodox-Forum to prove the point, with citations from Saint John of Damascus, Irenaeus of Lyons, Symeon the New Theologian, Fr Michael Pomazansky, various Greek theologians, etc.

These messages can still be accessed on Orthodox-Forum. Do a search using emrys for the Name of the Author and using body blood soul divinity for the Subject Line. But last time I looked the overtly heretical ones did not seem to be there any more.

Months later I was surprised to receive a message from America from a bishop saying that the Orthodox-Forum debate had been brought to his attention and he had taken some measures to apprise the erring clergy of the Church's teaching.

A more recent dialogue on the Indiana Orthodox list indicates that there's still much work to be done.

Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....

Quote

I said that there is no monolithic or universal teaching in Orthodoxy that brooks NO deviance one jurisdiction from another.

These are your words, Mary. I'm sure the rest of us are particularly interested in deviations within the Orthodox world in the teaching of the Real Presence.

That is one topic that I know for certain that Father Ambrose can address far better than I can do it. It is a particularly sensitive one for him too, and he is always challenging other Orthodox clergy...and sadly he seems to loose the battle more often than not.

As you may see from my message above, the battle was not lost at all. Episcopal intervention occurred and the true teaching was upheld.

Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....

Quote

I said that there is no monolithic or universal teaching in Orthodoxy that brooks NO deviance one jurisdiction from another.

These are your words, Mary. I'm sure the rest of us are particularly interested in deviations within the Orthodox world in the teaching of the Real Presence.

That is one topic that I know for certain that Father Ambrose can address far better than I can do it. It is a particularly sensitive one for him too, and he is always challenging other Orthodox clergy...and sadly he seems to loose the battle more often than not.

As you may see from my message above, the battle was not lost at all. Episcopal intervention occurred and the true teaching was upheld.

One bishop out of how many in this country?

But, as I said, the most recent engagement, in which you participated valiantly as always, does not indicate that there is any monolithic teaching concerning the Eucharist, at least in American Orthodoxy. But since American Orthodoxy is part of universal Orthodoxy....I think my claim is sustained...in all fairness to the claim if not the messenger...

A more recent dialogue on the Indiana Orthodox list indicates that there's still much work to be done.

Yes, that was quite astounding. A reader in the Greek Church saying that the divine energies of Christ are present in the Eucharist but His divine essence is absent.

What concerned me even more are the priests who claim that what you tell them is not or was not part of their seminary training.

At any rate, the truth prevails and we all over-come the moments when it seems to be slipping fast down here on the ground.

I don't say that Orthodox is not monolithic in her teachings in order to say that I think she is heretical. I point that out in order to fend off those who would condemn my Church for the same and similar kinds of things while presenting Orthodoxy as some sort of exemplar of unity in teaching at all levels.

Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....

Quote

I said that there is no monolithic or universal teaching in Orthodoxy that brooks NO deviance one jurisdiction from another.

These are your words, Mary. I'm sure the rest of us are particularly interested in deviations within the Orthodox world in the teaching of the Real Presence.

That is one topic that I know for certain that Father Ambrose can address far better than I can do it. It is a particularly sensitive one for him too, and he is always challenging other Orthodox clergy...and sadly he seems to loose the battle more often than not.

As you may see from my message above, the battle was not lost at all. Episcopal intervention occurred and the true teaching was upheld.

One bishop out of how many in this country?

If you are aware of heretical bishops in the Church then as a Catholic you are not obliged to report them to their Synod but perhaps you could inform some of the circle of Orthodox priests and bishops with whom you mix?

Quote

But, as I said, the most recent engagement, in which you participated valiantly as always, does not indicate that there is any monolithic teaching concerning the Eucharist, at least in American Orthodoxy.

You are well aware of the true teaching which is taught at all Orthodox seminaries. You have seen some of the material. Indeed it is all on this very forum. The fact that there are a couple of clerics in America who have never been near a seminary and who have fallen into heresy on this point is something you would be silly to overemphasise. As silly as a claim that the recent statement from the Catholic Patriarch of Lisbon that catholic theology admits the ordination of women can be accepted as a generally held position in the Catholic Church

These are Orthodox texts, readily available, on all the best book lists and catechism lists. I am not going to sit here and type out text. Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin....

Again this is simply a "Dixit Maria" statement. And your nose must be growing !! You don't provide any quotes from any catechisms nor any links to websites. To be fair you may have misremembered and thought you had.

It's in another thread somewhere. I am not worried about it. The list exists. There are 11 books listed. There's more but these are all the ones I can vouch for as actually being used to catechize.

check your code of canon law (or as it is offiically Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium (CCEO)), there is no such thing as a "fully independent particular church" in the Vatican's ecclesiastical community.http://www.intratext.com/X/ENG1199.HTM